At a recent IDSA Legal Task Force workshop, Professor Lyria Bennett Moses and Shannon Callaghan from the Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC) gave a clear and practical account of where things stand in Australia. Their message? The concept of data spaces travels well. The legal and policy references, not so much.
Australia’s data law patchwork
Australia doesn’t have a unified national data strategy. Instead, it has a mix of federal laws, state-level regulations, and sector-specific rules that overlap in inconsistent ways. One university might answer to state privacy law, while a federal agency follows the Commonwealth Privacy Act. Health data lives in its own legal universe. And then there’s the twist: data in Australia isn’t considered property. You can’t own it – you can only control access.
This creates friction. When Australian organizations want to adopt the data space model, they’re working with legal concepts that don’t quite line up with those assumed in the IDSA Rulebook.
Practical pilots, theoretical gaps
Despite the legal hurdles, ARDC is moving forward. Three data space pilots are already underway, covering environmental data, biosecurity, and a testbed for interoperability. There’s momentum. But building on top of a legal framework that doesn’t fully map to Australian law is a bit like fitting round pegs into square statutes.
So, what’s the fix? Professor Bennett Moses suggested a modular structure for the IDSA Rulebook. Keep the shared foundation: data sovereignty, trust, interoperability, but allow each jurisdiction to attach a legal appendix that aligns with local laws. This way, the Rulebook remains cohesive, but flexible. Australia gets a version it can implement. Other countries can do the same. This reduces the barriers of adoption for those working hard to understand dataspaces by describing them from the start in terms of their local legal and policy context.
Let’s not lose the plot
The IDSA Rulebook Working Group is already moving. A modular version is in development, shaped by input from Australia and other countries looking to make the model work within their legal systems.
Keeping a shared structure while allowing for regional interpretation makes the framework more practical. It doesn’t lower the bar, it just recognizes that legal systems vary, and that flexibility is key to making data spaces work globally.
Australia’s contribution highlighted a broader challenge and offered a realistic way forward. When legal alignment isn’t possible, clarity and adaptability become the next best thing.
What started as a national legal deep dive ended up raising the right questions for everyone: How do we make rules that travel? How do we keep a common direction without forcing a one-size-fits-all approach?
Those questions are now part of the process and they’re steering the work ahead.
